plan_tool_mapping

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'data accumulates,' which implies state-changing behavior, but omits details about revision (is_revision), side effects, what happens on repeated calls, or any persistence implications. This is minimal disclosure for a stateful tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds a behavioral note. The 'Phase 5' prefix is a bit cryptic without broader context, but overall it is concise and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the basic action but fails to describe how to use the tool correctly, what the 'data accumulates' means for parameters like is_revision, what happens on failure, or any expected return value. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the obvious mapping purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Map a sub-query to a tool.' It also adds a distinguishing behavior ('data accumulates') that helps separate it from siblings like plan_sub_query or plan_execution, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Phase 5' and 'Call once per mapping,' which hints at a phased workflow, but does not state conditions for choosing this tool over others or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.